NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Mrs. Laxmi Ramesh Sarda Partner in M/s. Zumberlal Sitaram Sarda —Petitioner
versus
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. — Respondent
Review Petition No. 1320 of 2008
(From the order dated 02.11.2007 in Appeal No. 863/2001 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad)
Decided on 23.9.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.K. Ray, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Insured is entitled to receive compensation on the basis of value shown in insurance policy after deducting some depreciation.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Total loss of car in accident—Insured is entitled to receive compensation on the basis of value shown in insurance policy after deducting some depreciation—In case of total damage to insured vehicle, insured is entitled to receive insured value of vehicle or value of motor vehicle at the time of loss whichever is less—State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal and upholding order of District forum dismissing complaint—Revision Petition dismissed. (Paras 9 to 12)
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 02.11.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 863/2001 – Mrs. Laxmi Ramesh Sarda v. The Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased CIELO passenger car for Rs.5,47,000/- on 15.6.1996. Car was insured with the OP/respondent for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of one year commencing from 21.7.98 to 20.7.99. On 15.7.1999, car met with an accident and car was totally smashed and damaged and was a case of total loss. Claim was submitted to the OP and OP finally paid Rs.2,36,500/- by cheque dated 15.11.1999 which was accepted by complainant under protest as Rs.2,36,500/- has been paid less. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that amount of Rs.2,36,500/- was accepted by the complainant as full and final satisfaction; hence, complaint is not maintainable. It was further submitted that vehicle was purchased in the year 1996 and its value could not have been Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of issuance of policy. It was further submitted that market price of the vehicle as per surveyor’s report was Rs.2,35,000/- and Rs.2,36,500/- has already been paid; hence, no deficiency on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as it was a case of total loss, petitioner was entitled to receive full value of the vehicle for which it was insured and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and leaned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint on the basis of payment as full and final satisfaction; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. It is admitted case of the parties that vehicle was purchased on 15.6.1996 for Rs.5,47,000/- and was insured for Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.7.1998. It is also admitted case that on account of accident on 15.7.1999, car was totally smashed and damaged and it was the case of total loss. Now, the question is whether; petitioner was entitled to receive Rs.5,00,000/- the amount for which vehicle was insured, or to get market price.
6. As far as payment of Rs.2,36,500/- as full and final settlement, perusal of record clearly reveals that amount was accepted by the petitioner under protest without prejudice. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner received this amount as full and final satisfaction and in such circumstances, complaint was maintainable.
7. As far as amount payable is concerned, as per insurance policy, vehicle was insured for Rs.5,00,000/-, but as per Surveyor, G.S. Advani & Co. total repair cost was Rs.3,05,000/- and market value of the vehicle was Rs.2,35,000/- including salvage of Rs.65,000/-. As per The Institute of Insurance Surveyors & Adjusters (Mumbai), Pune Unit, the market value of the insured vehicle was around Rs.2,35,000/-. This opinion was given by 3-Member Committee after inspecting the vehicle and enquiring market value of the vehicle from various sources and in such circumstances, we assume that market value of the vehicle on the date of accident was around Rs.2,35,000/-.
8. The short question to be decided is whether